Posted on 12/09/2024 9:34:51 PM PST by RandFan
A real-life "Succession" battle for Rupert Murdoch's media empire has ended with a Nevada court commissioner denying the billionaire's bid to change a family trust and give control to his eldest son.
The case pitted the 93-year-old against three of his children over who would gain the power to control News Corp and Fox News when he dies.
It has been reported that Mr Murdoch wanted to amend a family trust created in 1999 to allow his son Lachlan to take control without "interference" from his siblings Prudence, Elisabeth and James.
A Nevada commissioner ruled Mr Murdoch and Lachlan had acted in "bad faith" and called the efforts a "carefully crafted charade", according to the New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Frustrating one.
I thought all trusts are revocable?
I think Old Man Murdoch loves his money, but he also loves to fight and win. This new pastime of Guarding All the Gold should keep him busy for a good long while.
Meantime, he’s looking for a new girlfriend.
They are only irrevocable after death.
Might also apply if incapacitated, or unable to sanely handle their own wishes. Of course, this does not apply to the elder Murdoch.
They can be changed by a court order, which it looks like they tried to do here. But the whole point of an irrevocable trust is to remove the conservatee from control and liabilities of the assets. So they are very difficult to change by design. You give up control and liability so it wouldn’t quite be fair if you could simply change them at will. That’s what living trusts are for. Like JD Rockefeller said, own nothing but control everything. If you put everything in an irrevocable trust you no longer own it, the Trust does. The assets are shielded from yourself. The trust administrator basically has to use the assets in accordance with the requirements of the Trust.
It appears Rupert originally wanted some kind of even split but now changed his mind. It doesn’t mean a deal can’t be made between the beneficiaries. And Rupert can give whatever assets outside the trust to whomever he wants if he needs to change the playing field. Assuming he has significant assets outside. I doubt it. I’d bet most of the cash from Disney is in the Trust, as is Fox News and the media companies. They should go on a family retreat and hash it out .
Just sell News Corp. and Fox News to Elon Musk and call it a day.
You couldn’t be more wrong. If you are an attorney, I suggest you increase your E&O coverage and don’t practice trusts and estates until you become competent in that area of the law. You can start by reading Chapter 163 of the NRS.
Since they are his assets and he is still alive. I’m suprised he can’t change it. However, can he dissolve the current trust and draw up a new one?
+1
What he could do is sell Fox off to someone else before his death. That would preserve the value for the trust.....yet deny his 3 Leftist spawn any say over it. Of course he himself would lose control over it.
I don’t think it matters that much. Like other broadcast news channels, Fox’s audience is very old. The Boomers are the last generation which trusts broadcast news networks and which gets their news from them. The demographic reality is this audience isn’t going to be around that much longer.
“I thought all trusts are revocable?”
Not at all. The purpose of an irrevocable trust is to totally exclude it from your estate.
I’ve used trusts for years for many different purposes. All types, both revocable and irrevocable. Charitable Trusts are also an excellent tool as you can liquidate highly appreciated property tax free and get a good return on your contribution as well as a charitable deduction.
With the estate tax limits being raised, it has decreased their use. I fully expect the return of high estate taxes.
“What he could do is sell Fox off to someone else before his death. “
It all depends upon how the trust agreement was drafted.
The problem is that you cannot change the residual beneficiaries. In most states you can retain the right to name a new Trustee, but you also must be careful what actions are allowable to the Trustee.
Many times, I have broken irrevocable trusts in court. But it takes an agreement of all the residual beneficiaries. Without that agreement, you end up with your hands tied like Murdoch.
The Trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets for the beneficiary. If they fail to do that they can become personally liable.
True it depends on the trust. Though a lawyer, I never specialized in “stiffs and their gifts” ie Wills, Trusts and Estates. A sale of the underlying asset, (Fox News) would protect the actual corpus, ie the value of the trust for the beneficiaries.
But yes, the trust could be structured in such a way that a sale of Fox News would be impossible.
Correct. Too many unknown facts.
That is exactly what I was thinking. I would liquidate the whole shebang, and let the kids earn it the hard way.
If a conservator is appointed by the court with powers to control changes with court approval, yes a Trust can be revoked or changed. .
I have lived through this with death of my Dad, Conservator of my Stepmom. Why don’t you take your snark and shove it. I am not an attorney, but yes have lived through 14 years of courts and so called lawyers who are pretty useless when you need anything resolved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.